Skip to main content

Agenda and minutes

Planning and Licensing Committee - Wednesday, 10th April, 2024 2.00 pm

Venue: the Council Chamber - Council Offices, Trinity Road, Cirencester, GL7 1PX. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services 

Media

Items
No. Item

68.

Apologies

To receive any apologies for absence.

 

The quorum for the Planning and Licensing Committee is 3 members.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Councillor Andrew Maclean.

 

69.

Substitute Members

To note details of any substitution arrangements in place for the Meeting.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There were no substitute members.

70.

Declarations of Interest

To receive any declarations of interest from Members and Officers, relating to

items to be considered at the meeting.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Dilys Neill stated for transparency that she knew the Parish Councillor on the first application, but had not discussed the item with them. This was not a pecuniary interest Councillor Neill had not pre-determined the application.

 

Councillor David Fowles stated that he potentially knew the owner of the cottages related to the second application, but that this was not pecuniary and he had not pre-determined the application.

71.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 108 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 13 March 2024.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting on 13 March 2024 were considered as part of the pack.

 

The Interim Development Management Manager stated that on page 9, “in consultation with the Chair of The Planning and Licensing Committee” had been added to the minutes after publication.

 

The following amendments were addressed;

  • Pg. 13 – “the Vice Chair took the Chair as the Chair was the Ward Member” (Chair to be added)
  • Pg. 9 – “a member” should replace “members”
  • Councillor Mark Harris stated that they wished to be referred to by his preferred pronouns “he”, instead of “they”. The Democratic Services Officer stated that the practice of utilising the generic “they” was outlined in the minute style guide, but that they could explore changing this practice.
  • “ward ember” should read “ward member”

 

RESOLVED: That the Planning and Licensing Committee APPROVE minutes of the meeting held on 13 March 2024 subject to the amendments being made.

 

Voting record

 

8 For, 0 Against, 1 Abstention, 2 Absent/Did not vote

 

For

Against

Abstain

Absent/Did not vote

Daryl Corps

 

Patrick Coleman

Andrew Maclean

David Fowles

 

 

Ian Watson

Dilys Neill

 

 

 

Gary Selwyn

 

 

 

Julia Judd

 

 

 

Mark Harris

 

 

 

Michael Vann

 

 

 

Ray Brassington

 

 

 

 

72.

Chair's Announcements (if any)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There were no Chair Announcements.

73.

Public questions

A maximum of 15 minutes is allocated for an “open forum” of public questions at committee meetings. No person may ask more than two questions (including supplementary questions) and no more than two such questions may be asked on behalf of one organisation. The maximum length of oral questions or supplementary questions by the public will be two minutes. Questions must relate to the responsibilities of the Committee but questions in this section cannot relate to applications for determination at the meeting.

 

The response may take the form of:

a)    A direct oral response (maximum length: 2 minutes);

b)    Where the desired information is in a publication of the Council or other published work, a reference to that publication; or

c)    Where the reply cannot conveniently be given orally, a written answer circulated later to the questioner.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There were no public questions.

74.

Member questions

A maximum period of fifteen minutes is allowed for Member questions. Questions must be directed to the Chair and must relate to the remit of the committee but may not relate to applications for determination at the meeting.

 

Questions will be asked in the order notice of them was received, except that the Chair may group together similar questions.

 

The deadline for submitting questions is 5.00pm on the working day before the day of the meeting unless the Chair agrees that the question relates to an urgent matter, in which case the deadline is 9.30am on the day of the meeting.

 

A member may submit no more than two questions. At the meeting the member may ask a supplementary question arising directly from the original question or the reply. The maximum length of a supplementary question is one minute.

 

The response to a question or supplementary question may take the form of:

a)    A direct oral response (maximum length: 2 minutes);

b)    Where the desired information is in a publication of the Council or other published work, a reference to that publication; or

c)    Where the reply cannot conveniently be given orally, a written answer circulated later to the questioner.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Interim Development Management Manager provided an update on the response to Councillor Dilys Neill’s question from the meeting of the Planning and Licensing Committee held on 13 December. The Interim Development Manager explained that  delays had occurred due to the Forward Planning team’s focus on the Local Plan, but stated that a response would be provided to Councillor Neill within two weeks of the Committee.

75.

22/04163/FUL- The Feathered Nest Inn, Nether Westcote, Chipping Norton, Gloucestershire, OX7 6SD pdf icon PDF 239 KB

Summary

Erection of eight units of overnight accommodation and associated works at the Feathered Nest Inn, Nether Westcote, Chipping Norton, Gloucestershire, OX7 6SD

 

Case Officer

Martin Perks

 

Ward Member

Councillor David Cunningham

 

Recommendation:

PERMIT

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Case Officer introduced the report. The application was for the erection of eight units of overnight accommodation and associated works at the Feathered Nest Inn, Nether Westcote, Chipping Norton, Gloucestershire, OX7 6S.

 

The public speakers were then invited to address the Committee.

 

Trevor Bigg, the Chair of Westcote Parish Meeting, addressed the Committee, raising objections to the application citing concerns over  the location of the accommodation, stating that a closer proximity to the nearby building would have been preferable to prevent increased light pollution and visibility from the village.

 

Victoria Taylor, an Objector addressed the Committee, raising objections over road traffic, and the Conservation Area and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

 

Neil Warner from JPPC, the agent for the application, addressed the application. They stated that the overarching purpose of the application was to ensure the financial sustainability of the pub business.

 

Councillor David Cunningham addressed the committee as the Ward Member and raised concerns on the lack of public benefit to the application, and the impact on the AONB and Conservation Area.

 

Members who had attended the Site Inspection Briefing commented on the application;

  • There were strong examples of local vernacular in the nearby architecture but the impact of the application did not seem to be as impactful as initially expected.
  • The new buildings would be partially screened by nearby vegetation.
  • It was useful to see and hear residents’ concerns.

 

Member Questions

 

There were various questions from Members, which the Case Officer and the Interim Development Management Manager responded to;

  • The conditions aimed to regiment parking spaces, but the management of these was down to the applicant to execute. The Case Officer added that the level of traffic was not expected to substantially increase from current levels.
  • The planning history of the site involved multiple past permissions, some of which included use by caravans. The Case Officer stated that each application should be considered on its own merits, and these would have been acceptable at the time.
  • Members asked if the new buildings were very far away from the principal pub building in order to make it easier to convert them into dwellings in the future. The Case Officer stated that they didn’t believe this to be the case as the accommodation units were intended to be serviced units and ancillary to the pub, but that the applicant could bring such a future application forward. If a future application was brought forward, it would need to be judged on its own merits.
  • The Case Officer stated that the application’s impact on the setting of the conservation area should be taken into consideration, but that the proposed was considered not to harm the heritage asset.
  • The Case Officer did not consider that there was any harm to dark skies.
  • The public benefit was discussed as per the Ward Member’s comments. The Case Officer stated that this would be a material planning consideration in the case of impact on a heritage asset, when harm was identified.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

76.

24/00055/PLP- Land South Of 1 - 3 Corner Houses, Driffield, Gloucestershire, GL7 5QA pdf icon PDF 99 KB

Summary

Permission in principle for the construction of 2 no. dwellings at Land South Of 1 - 3 Corner Houses Driffield Gloucestershire GL7 5QA

 

Case Officer

Andrew Moody

 

Ward Member

Councillor Lisa Spivey

 

Recommendation:

Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Case Officer introduced the item. The application was for the permission in principle for the construction of two dwellings at Land South of 1 – 3 Corner Houses Driffield Gloucestershire GL7 5QA.

 

Councillor David Fowles stated that he knew the owners of the land but that it did not constitute a pecuniary interest on his part and he had not pre-determined the application.

 

Public Speakers

 

Joe Seymour from McLoughlin Planning Ltd, the agent on the application addressed the Committee. He stated that the applicant was a small scale house builder and that the application was for two new houses.

 

Councillor Lisa Spivey addressed the Committee as the Ward Member. Councillor Spivey explained that she had referred the application to the Committee due to a potential conflict between Local Plan Polices DS3 (Small-Scale Residential Development In Non-Principal Settlements) and DS4 (Open Market Housing Outside Principal And Non-Principal Settlements).

 

 

Member Questions

 

Members asked questions, to which the Case Officer provided answers;

  • On the point of what a permission in principle application constituted, the Case Officer referred to paragraph 10.4 of their report, which stated; “With regard to the decision making process, the PPG (Planning Practice Guidance) states: ‘How must a decision on whether to grant permission in principle to a site be made? A decision on whether to grant permission in principle to a site following a valid application or by entering it on Part 2 of a brownfield land register must be made in accordance with relevant policies in the development plan unless there are material considerations, such as those in the National Planning Policy Framework and national guidance, which indicate otherwise.’“ The Committee would therefore need to make its decision on the sustainability of development in this location.
  • There were no details for the garden’s ownership, as that information was not required for a permission in principle application.
  • The Local Plan review that was underway included review of policy DS3 but that this was not material to the application.
  • It was confirmed that the appeal process was the same as for any other application.
  • The Highways Authority recommended refusal, but this was due to a blanket approach to all development in non-principal boundaries which did not take into consideration the existence of DS3 which was conflicting.

 

Member Comments

 

Members commented on the application, stating that Ampney Crucis was closely related to the village of Driffield, and served it in terms of amenities. This was considered a good opportunity to support the village’s growth in a way that was proportionate in scale.

 

Councillor Julia Judd proposed permitting the application, agreeing with the recommendations in the report, and adding that the applicant had built sympathetically designed homes at a small scale across the district. 

 

Councillor Dilys Neill seconded the proposal.

 

RESOLVED: To PERMIT the application

 

Voting record

 

9 For, 0 Against, 0 Abstentions, 2 Absent/Did not vote

 

For

Against

Abstentions

Absent/Did not vote

Ray Brassington

 

 

Ian Watson

Patrick Coleman

 

 

Andrew Maclean

Daryl Corps

 

 

 

David Fowles

 

 

 

Dilys Neill

 

 

 

Gary Selwyn

 

 

 

Julia  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

77.

Sites Inspection Briefing (SIB)

Members for 1 May 2024;

 

Councillors Ray Brassington, Patrick Coleman, David Fowles, Andrew Maclean, Michael Vann

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Interim Development Management Manager stated that they would be in touch if this was required. Members asked whether the Environment Agency could attend Future Briefings. The Interim Development Management Manager stated that the Environment Agency could be invited but that the Council had no legal powers in compelling them to attend.

78.

Licensing Sub-Committee

Not required at present.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Democratic Services Officer stated that a Licensing Sub-Committee was not required at present.

 

Related Pages